GleeUnit:I think it's funny how these threads always bring new trolls just out of the woodwork. It's almost as if backing up the NRA and shouting down their critics is their only reason for being here. Strange, no?

i thought it was to shout at gun owners about their alleged penis size. it seems to be the only thing gun haters know to say.

I think it's funny how these threads always bring new trolls just out of the woodwork. It's almost as if backing up the NRA and shouting down their critics is their only reason for being here. Strange, no?

Greylight:Giltric: Greylight: Canadian here, my freedom was aquired by pen you ethnocentric son of a gun. The only time it needed to be defended by a gun was against Americans during the war of 1812

You stole land at gunpoint from an aboriginal people just like every other colonist.

It's fascinating to see the mental gymnastics some people will go through to defend the idea that arms are the only way to achieve independence.

Not as much as people who pretend that words alone will always be enough.

The pen is only mightier than the sword when both sides have had enough of killing/war and are BOTH willing to use the pen instead. When one side has a sword and pen while the other has only pen, guess who gets their way?

neversubmit:fuhfuhfuh: Both sides of the current gun debate seem to enjoy resorting to appeals to emotion, slippery slopes and outright fabrications to try to defend their positions. Doesn't make either side right, or make either side look like they are anything but knee-jerk reactionaries.

Which side has a body count?

The side with all the gun free zones that people keep getting murdered in because they are not allowed to defend themselves with equal force.

fuhfuhfuh:Both sides of the current gun debate seem to enjoy resorting to appeals to emotion, slippery slopes and outright fabrications to try to defend their positions. Doesn't make either side right, or make either side look like they are anything but knee-jerk reactionaries.

GleeUnit:I think it's funny how these threads always bring new trolls just out of the woodwork. It's almost as if backing up the NRA and shouting down their critics is their only reason for being here. Strange, no?

No, there's just scared little man-children desperately clinging to their guns and religion.

Amos Quito:Yeah, sorta like abuses of government power "just keep happening" - you know, like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung... How many millions in the last century???

Roight, gov. Keep selling them guns to criminals and lunatics. Don't even dream of prosecuting straw purchasers. Blame B. Hussein Osama when the guns end up in the hands of Mexican drug gangs.

you gullible twat

Pot, meet kettle. When tyranny comes to America, it will not be to black helicopters and UN troops rounding up decent Gawd-fearing folks to be reeducated as gay communist Muslim atheists. It will be to flags and fireworks and Sousa marches and clean-cut guys promising to protect decent Gawd-fearing folks from the Feelthy Queers, Union Thugs, Scary Mooselimbs, Smelly Hippies and Greasy Spics.

And you citizen militia types will be waving the flags and shouting "hail victory" when the Leader tells you to.

My goal is that Instituting an enforceable policy where increased background checks, a national registry and a well-funded research program to study mental illness and the causes of gun violence will decrease the possibility of tragedies like Sandy Hook from happening.

This is not a numbers game where we want to reduce "x." This is about changing the paradigm altogether so that dysfunctional bouts of violence such as school shootings stop occurring altogether.

Okay, so you're not really interested in reducing gun violence in general, just in preventing certain, comparatively rare types of gun violence such as school shootings. Correct?

And how exactly will "background checks" and a "national registry" advance that goal?

whidbey:2. Do you believe that the measures being proposed by pro-regulation legislators will advance these goals?

Why or why not?

If they're just planning on banning weapons without focusing on the goals I mentioned, we're not going to see much in the way of progress.

What they are now proposing will do nothing to address the issues that seem to concern you. What they are doing is merely the prep work for broader confiscation. Background checks and registry tells them WHO LEGALLY has guns and WHERE - which serves ONE purpose. Can you guess what it is?

whidbey:However, if they do decide to pump money into research, streamlining and making background checks more effective, and eventually making the effort to establish a National Gun Registry, then I would then conclude that they would be taking these goals very seriously.

"In the Soviet Union, systematic political abuse of psychiatry took place.[1] Psychiatry of the Brezhnev period was used as a tool to eliminate political opponents ("dissidents"), people who openly expressed their views that contradict officially declared dogmas.[2] In case the person did not agree with the specific actions of people in leading positions and criticized them by using philosophic dogmas according to the writings by Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, the term "philosophical intoxication" was widely used to diagnose mental disorders."

END QUOTE

No one wants psychopaths to have access to firearms - or gasoline, or matches, or car keys... etc.

I judge the purported motives of those who would pretend to address any given "problem" by the solutions that they would hope enforce on us, and in the current gun debate, I find the motives of the "gun regulators" are disingenuous - deceptive, even.

Not that everyone who BELIEVES the appeal to EMOTION dished out by the gun-grabbers is disingenuous (people are SUCKERS for emotional appeal), but the Feinsteins and their ilk. These are nothing more than AUTHORITARIANS - would be tyrants - as defined in the other thread.

Assault weapons, for example, do NOT pose a major threat to public safety. They DO, however, pose a major obstacle to to would-be tyrants.

GameSprocket:Giltric: GameSprocket: Giltric: Freedom is a little messy at times....would you like citations.

Freedom from what, overcrowding?

Rights...freedoms....like freedom of speech.

Would you abandon it if it would have saved this girls life?Her name was Eden Wormer.

[media.katu.com image 405x304]

How about this girl...her name was Phoebe Prince. Would you sacrifice your right to free speech if it would bring her back?

[i.usatoday.net image 490x445]

I wouldn't. But thats me.

Are you implying that gun ownership is how we progress as a society? Because that is what the First Amendment gives us. Or, are you trying to say that gun victims commit suicide by throwing themselves into bullets?

Your apple still looks like an orange to me.

Actually he makes a good point. Rights are rights. If the Aurora victims could be brought back at the cost of your right to vote, would you bring them back? You have a right, enshrined in the Constitution to own firearms, just like you have a right to vote and a right to free speech.

Warrants served on his home showed a certificate for a pistol safety course and his mother also had a certificate. CT state law states you must take a safety course before purchasing a pistol. No NRA membership documentation was found.

To date there has been no evidence that he was a member of the NRA....can you provide any?

blindio:The idea that the US Military would enslave us in some socialist dystopia were it not for a bunch of hillbillies with semi automatic rifles is the biggest fantasy you will ever tell yourself. Your Red Dawn wet dreams aside, there is already a massive training and equipment gap between a genuine military unit and the good ole' boys 363rd that meets as Scullie's bar to talk about the good old days when they played jr. varsity football. If that was really the goal of the government, you've already lost.

I know, it's such a stupid argument. It's not guns that protect you from an overarching government, its YOU. It's the people. It's elections. It's the news, the internet, the spread of information. The ability for citizens to band together, to protest, to speak their minds. Your guns don't protect you from a tyrannical government. Certainly not from the nation with the most powerful military in the world. You could completely take away the second amendment from the constitution and it would have no effect on the formation of the United States into a socialist, enslaving, and tyrannical regime. That may have not been true half a century ago, but i certainly believe its true now.

So Mother Jones got it dead on and the NRA very clearly lied. And all that only takes an intelligent adult maybe 2-3 minutes to confirm independently. But hey, if everyone were an intelligent adult, I guess there'd be no room left for bleating conservative shills, would there?

Dr Dreidel:Bravo Two: Antimatter: Further discussion on this topic is pointless: the guns rights folks won. The occasional violent robbery, massacre, rape or murder is just the price we are going to have to accept.

Guns cause rape and violent robbery? Wat?

They don't "cause" rape and robbery, but as Samuel Colt implied, they make them a hell of a lot easier. Also true of assault, terrorism, accidental homicide, suicide and intentional murder.

Do you disagree?

// and no, screwdrivers, crossbows and trebuchets do not have "the same" problems - non-projectile, and not as accurate/prevalent/concealable

They also make defending yourself against those things easier. Meaning it's a wash and we should move on to looking at human psychology as a way to solve these problems.

Keizer_Ghidorah:tlchwi02: arguments about what precisely to do about gun control aside, i can not in any world see how making schools armored fortresses with armed guards is in any way, shape or form a rational response to school shootings

If we do something about the guns themselves, or try anything that has to do with the guns themselves, it's destroying the Constitution and all of the hobbyists, doomsday preppers, and rednecks explode about Obama personally coming to take their guns and toss them into a portable smelter while ordering criminals and Muslims to ransack their homes and rape their children. So turning elementary schools into armed gulags is the most reasonable plan that doesn't impose on anyone's gun rights.

I'm on both sides of this issue, but we can all agree that SOMETHING needs to be done that ISN'T either taking all the guns away (which is NEVER going to happen, no matter how much people conspiracy theorize about it) or turning every home, business, and factory into a prison-fortress. I've posted a list I've made of things that can be done many times before that doesn't include either of those, but someone always shoots them all down because of money or time or because they think they're stupid, so apparently I'm the only one who stands in the middle ground.

Honest question: why are we talking about the guns?

Seriously. Last time I heard there was going to be a look into mental health policy in this country so we could de-stigmatize and provide treatment and get people sane before they ever went off the deep end.

Now, it's back to assault weapons bans... again. We've had these laws before, and Columbine happened smack-dab in the middle of the Federal ban that was law from 1994-2004. We're sitting here like superstitious natives blaming inanimate objects.

All civilian-owned firearms (registered and unregistered) vanish overnight, along with the capabilities to manufacture or import more from other sources.

What does the remainder of the year look like...

- Dramatic decrease in the number of homicides (homicides involving other weapons increase slightly)- Decrease in the number of robberies and assaults- Increase in the number of crime victims fighting their attackers- Small percentage of the population forced to buy meat- Small percentage of the population forced to find other hobbies (e.g. archery)- Gun dealers, manufacturers and factory works forced to seek new employment- Gun nuts forced to fixate on cars, watches, knives and other "macho" artifacts

Oh yeah...

- U.S. government uses its military to enslave its citizens as socialist workers, ensuring the demise of the U.S. economy at a time when most communist and socialist countries are beginning to embrace some form of capitalism (ha ha)

Again, just a thought experiment to consider what guns do for us.

I ultimately believe people should have the right to own guns, and think most proposed gun-control legislation is window dressing. But I also think the U.S. has some serious issues, and multiple murders are a symptom, not the problem.

FTFA:For example, in 2010 a 16-year-old attacker killed six people hiding in a locked classroom in Hastings Middle School in Minnesota by shooting and subsequently stepping through a tempered glass window that ran vertically alongside the classroom door. Horrifying-except it never happened.

And later in TFA: It's possible that the episode in question may have been a mix-up; its footnote cites a news story covering both the incident at Hastings Middle School and the massacre at Red Lake Senior High School five years prior, in which a teen assailant killed seven and injured five before committing suicide. But whatever the case, the bad info shows that the NRA is unreliable when it comes to assessing mass gun violence.

It never happened, except that it did happen, just somewhere else, and with more dead and injured. By conflating two actual events, the NRA is engaging in fear and fantasy, the 2nd amendment is automatically expunged, and everyone at the NRA has to send an apology letter to James Brady.

Antimatter:Further discussion on this topic is pointless: the guns rights folks won. The occasional violent robbery, massacre, rape or murder is just the price we are going to have to accept.

This is the part I'd love to see all gun nuts just flat out say. There's undeniable proof that guns cause more homicides and suicides, and removing guns from the equation greatly diminishes both. I would like the gun nuts and the NRA just say that their hobby greatly affects the death toll in their country, but they're okay with it. I'd hate their opinion, but I'd respect it more than this hiding behind the Constitution BS.

All you have to do is link an article from a credible news agency showing that there was, in fact, a massacre at Hastings Middle School in Minnesota in 2010. Then you'll have ample grounds to criticize the source.

The fact that they think they can just make up a school shooting with 6 fatalities just proves that something needs to be done. It happens often enough that the NRA thinks people won't even question them if you don't rember 6 kids getting shot dead.

I am all for making schools more secure (windows, locks, controlling entrance...etc.) But given that a centerpiece of their security plan is arming Staff and Volunteers, I cringe. Having been a teacher and knowing the type of staff and others that would junp at the chance to volunteer, they would be the ones I would worry the most about!

Personally, I think the saddest thing about the whole mess is how easily one could make up a school shooting without it being instantly questioned, owing to the fact that it happens often enough that one wouldn't instinctively know it's BS. Kind of like the war in Australia...

Keizer_Ghidorah:pedrop357: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: Freedom is a little messy...and the alternative is no freedom.

That sums it up there.

School shootings are the price we pay for "freedom".

They're the price we pay for letting gun control nuts enable mass murder by denying people the ability to carry a firearm to defend themselves in certain areas.

Not a "gun control nut", but every adult in the school with a gun + schoolchildren doesn't really seem like a smart idea.

Israel supposedly has done this sine the 60s or 70s without the type of incident the detractors claim will happen...like a teacher getting mad at a student and shooting them, or a student tyring to access the teachers firearm.

Many schools have had full time armed security, almost half of all schols in the US. SOme cities even have their own hundred plus person police departments, places like Detroit, Baltimore, NYC, Philadelphia....and I have not heard of any shootings where an armed security guard has shot someone beciase they were mad.

Utah(?) has allowed teachers to conceal carry since 06 or 08...and I haven't heard any situations that would warrant any hand wringing.

What I believe is that the gun control crowd is very violent. It is their violent fantasies that they project onto others, like Republicans, pro gun whoevers, armed teachers, cops etc... They think a teacher would shoot a student over a case of the Mondays because they themselves would shoot a student due to a case of the Mondays.

They are afraid of what they themselves would do with a firearm so therefore nobody should have a firearm.

Greylight:Giltric: Greylight: Giltric: Greylight: Canadian here, my freedom was aquired by pen you ethnocentric son of a gun. The only time it needed to be defended by a gun was against Americans during the war of 1812

You stole land at gunpoint from an aboriginal people just like every other colonist.

It's fascinating to see the mental gymnastics some people will go through to defend the idea that arms are the only way to achieve independence.

If someone is bullying you and I, and I go and bloody their nose and break their jaw and they no longer have the will to bully you or me......was your freedom aquired through violence or non violence?

You are right there are some pretty awesome gymnastics going on here Nadia.

Did the jews aquire their freedom from the concentration camps through violence or non violence?

You don't have to be the one perpetrating the violence if you benefit from it

One name to disprove this idiotic idea that arms are the only tool to achieve independence:

Keizer_Ghidorah:Giltric: Generic Republican: You also want no obligation to store these weapons in a manner that makes them resistant to theft. In essence, you want zero responsibility for owning a weapon

A safe will be enough at first...then after the first incident it will have to be a safe that is at least one inch thick, then it will have to be a safe that is 2 inches thick....then the safe will have to be made of solid unobtanium with an alarm that notifies the police that it is being broken into, then we will end up back at registries because the goal line keeps being moved further and further by the people whos ultimate goal is nothing but the total disarmament of people.

Wow, you really are a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. I received it from the 2nd amendment and the Dick act of 1902....Along you come and say, "Give me that cake." I say, "No, it's my cake." You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

You say, "Let's compromise once more." What do I get out of this compromise? I get to keep one eighth of what's left of the cake I already own?

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Machine gun ban of 1986 -- and I'm left holding what is now just an eighth of my cake.

I sit back in the corner with just my eighth of cake that I once owned outright and completely, I glance up and here you come once more.

You say nothing and just grab my cake; This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

Greylight:BigNumber12: Greylight: Canadian here, my freedom was aquired by pen you ethnocentric son of a gun.

No need to thank us for breaking Britain's imperial spirit for you, without which they wouldn't have given a damn what your pen was doing. Our efforts were mostly self-serving anyway. We don't mind that other people rode our coattails a few centuries later.

You might want to read up a little more on Canadian history and about that little group known as the Commonwealth. Independance without violence, your assumption that freedom requires guns is insane.

Yep, Canadian history should be viewed in a vacuum. The British relaxed their hold on Canada because they've always been super nice, easygoing folks like they are currently, and they suddenly realized that colonialism was bad and your desire for independence was reasonable and legitimate after all. Boy was their face red when they had that epiphany!

Your assumption that freedom only requires a pen is naive. Your independence did require violence - others colonies fought and eventually broke England's colonial will so that you wouldn't need to.

Giltric:GameSprocket: Giltric: GameSprocket: Giltric: Freedom is a little messy at times....would you like citations.

Freedom from what, overcrowding?

Rights...freedoms....like freedom of speech.

Would you abandon it if it would have saved this girls life?Her name was Eden Wormer.

[media.katu.com image 405x304]

How about this girl...her name was Phoebe Prince. Would you sacrifice your right to free speech if it would bring her back?

[i.usatoday.net image 490x445]

I wouldn't. But thats me.

Are you implying that gun ownership is how we progress as a society? Because that is what the First Amendment gives us. Or, are you trying to say that gun victims commit suicide by throwing themselves into bullets?

Your apple still looks like an orange to me.

No I am implying that firearms ownership is an inalienable, enumerated right, and that rights are not something you erase over emotion or polling.

I believe it is the keystone that allows you to keep all your other rights it is the last box you turn too when the soap, ballot and jury box fail.

Freedom is a little messy...and the alternative is no freedom. Do you enjoy your freedoms? They were bought and paid for via the gun.

Maybe next time you can fight for your own freedoms using a poem...let me know how that turns out.

Canadian here, my freedom was aquired by pen you ethnocentric son of a gun. The only time it needed to be defended by a gun was against Americans during the war of 1812

Nutsac_Jim:neversubmit: fuhfuhfuh: Both sides of the current gun debate seem to enjoy resorting to appeals to emotion, slippery slopes and outright fabrications to try to defend their positions. Doesn't make either side right, or make either side look like they are anything but knee-jerk reactionaries.

Antimatter:Further discussion on this topic is pointless: the guns rights liberal folks won (on the topics of immigration, alcohol, or drugs). The occasional violent robbery, massacre, rape or murder is just the price we are going to have to accept.

GameSprocket:Giltric: No I am implying that firearms ownership is an inalienable, enumerated right, and that rights are not something you erase over emotion or polling.

I believe it is the keystone that allows you to keep all your other rights it is the last box you turn too when the soap, ballot and jury box fail.

Freedom is a little messy...and the alternative is no freedom. Do you enjoy your freedoms? They were bought and paid for via the gun.

Maybe next time you can fight for your own freedoms using a poem...let me know how that turns out.

Last time I fought for freedom, I was on a carrier. However, do you want to get into a discussion about whether more change for good has happened though violence or though ideas?

Do you really think that you have inalienable rights that cannot be abridged? I challenge you to find me one enumerated right that has not been abridged in some manner. Quit crying because someone wants to make you be responsible with your toys.

The 2nd is already regulated. It is against the law to commit a crime using a firearm. That is pretty much the shouting fire in a crowded theater thing people like to say is a reasonable regulation.

What people want to do is cut out the voice box so you have no chance to shout fire in a crowded theatre when it comes to comparing it with the regulation of firearms.

Generic Republican:You also want no obligation to store these weapons in a manner that makes them resistant to theft. In essence, you want zero responsibility for owning a weapon

A safe will be enough at first...then after the first incident it will have to be a safe that is at least one inch thick, then it will have to be a safe that is 2 inches thick....then the safe will have to be made of solid unobtanium with an alarm that notifies the police that it is being broken into, then we will end up back at registries because the goal line keeps being moved further and further by the people whos ultimate goal is nothing but the total disarmament of people.

WippitGuud:bugontherug: Giltric: Or am I supposed to be psychic and know someone has stolen my firearms while I am away?

You're supposed to maximally secure your firearm using the most cost effective means available factoring into your cost-benefit calculation that liability can be imposed without fault. That's the idea of strict liability, and it works.

You can think of it as a less intrusive, more enforceable version of a non-variable duty to inventory your firearms daily. Which is a perfectly reasonable, constitutionally permissible duty the state can impose.

Want to maintain your firearms rights? Keep track of your firearms every day. It really is that simple!

Technology is tiny nowadays.Why not add GPS transmitters like are in cell phones? Then you can have your gun monitored 24/7.

GameSprocket:Giltric: GameSprocket: Giltric: Freedom is a little messy at times....would you like citations.

Freedom from what, overcrowding?

Rights...freedoms....like freedom of speech.

Would you abandon it if it would have saved this girls life?Her name was Eden Wormer.

[media.katu.com image 405x304]

How about this girl...her name was Phoebe Prince. Would you sacrifice your right to free speech if it would bring her back?

[i.usatoday.net image 490x445]

I wouldn't. But thats me.

Are you implying that gun ownership is how we progress as a society? Because that is what the First Amendment gives us. Or, are you trying to say that gun victims commit suicide by throwing themselves into bullets?

Your apple still looks like an orange to me.

No I am implying that firearms ownership is an inalienable, enumerated right, and that rights are not something you erase over emotion or polling.

I believe it is the keystone that allows you to keep all your other rights it is the last box you turn too when the soap, ballot and jury box fail.

Freedom is a little messy...and the alternative is no freedom. Do you enjoy your freedoms? They were bought and paid for via the gun.

Maybe next time you can fight for your own freedoms using a poem...let me know how that turns out.

No, we can't do anything like strengthen background checks and keep better track of who buys a gun! Because that restricts freedom somehow!

Give me access to the database so I don't have to involve a thrid party who will charge me for a F2F transfer and make the background check and transfer free, and keep no records of the transaction...ie no registry....let me keep my own transfer records to prove I sold a gun or purchased one legitimately.

Deal?

Deal. One caveat Your gun goes missing and you don't report it within a 24 hour period, you are barred from owning firearms for life.

Does that 24 hour period start when I get back to PA after spending a month in Florida or Wyoming? Or am I supposed to be psychic and know someone has stolen my firearms while I am away?

Excellent point. However as a responsible gun owner you would obviously store your firearms in an alarmed locked gun safe and have a neighbor or friend check on the weapons daily while you are away. Perhaps a business venture where vacationing gun owners could check their weapons into a gun hotel?

Okay...make the alarmed, 3 inch thick battleship steel safes free too like transfers and background checks. I wouldn't want poor people to be excluded from having rights.

Why would I want a neighbor or friend or family to keep an eye on them......aren't most crimes committed by someone that is known to you?

All I gathered from this is that gun owners do not want to be responsible for their own guns.

No, we can't do anything like strengthen background checks and keep better track of who buys a gun! Because that restricts freedom somehow!

Give me access to the database so I don't have to involve a thrid party who will charge me for a F2F transfer and make the background check and transfer free, and keep no records of the transaction...ie no registry....let me keep my own transfer records to prove I sold a gun or purchased one legitimately.

Deal?

Deal. One caveat Your gun goes missing and you don't report it within a 24 hour period, you are barred from owning firearms for life.

Does that 24 hour period start when I get back to PA after spending a month in Florida or Wyoming? Or am I supposed to be psychic and know someone has stolen my firearms while I am away?

Excellent point. However as a responsible gun owner you would obviously store your firearms in an alarmed locked gun safe and have a neighbor or friend check on the weapons daily while you are away. Perhaps a business venture where vacationing gun owners could check their weapons into a gun hotel?

Okay...make the alarmed, 3 inch thick battleship steel safes free too like transfers and background checks. I wouldn't want poor people to be excluded from having rights.

Why would I want a neighbor or friend or family to keep an eye on them......aren't most crimes committed by someone that is known to you?

Generic Republican:Giltric: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: Freedom is a little messy at times....would you like citations.

So we should just settle for these shootings?

No, we can't do anything like strengthen background checks and keep better track of who buys a gun! Because that restricts freedom somehow!

Give me access to the database so I don't have to involve a thrid party who will charge me for a F2F transfer and make the background check and transfer free, and keep no records of the transaction...ie no registry....let me keep my own transfer records to prove I sold a gun or purchased one legitimately.

Deal?

Deal. One caveat Your gun goes missing and you don't report it within a 24 hour period, you are barred from owning firearms for life.

Does that 24 hour period start when I get back to PA after spending a month in Florida or Wyoming? Or am I supposed to be psychic and know someone has stolen my firearms while I am away?

Giltric:Mrtraveler01: Giltric: Freedom is a little messy at times....would you like citations.

So we should just settle for these shootings?

No, we can't do anything like strengthen background checks and keep better track of who buys a gun! Because that restricts freedom somehow!

Give me access to the database so I don't have to involve a thrid party who will charge me for a F2F transfer and make the background check and transfer free, and keep no records of the transaction...ie no registry....let me keep my own transfer records to prove I sold a gun or purchased one legitimately.

Deal?

If we can't trust a farker who is in to dead kiddie porn to not forge documentation, who can we trust?

Deucednuisance:royone: For those who want to read the NRA report for yourselves, it's here:http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/670907-133630146-nra-s-nation al -school-shield-report.html#document/p1/a97899

The example cited is on page number 48 (69 of the document, but the page number at the bottom of the page is 48). It is used to bolster the argument that windows should be secured.

Those bastards are trying to lie us into secure windows in our schools!

So, as long as I can bisect an angle, it's OK if one of the Givens of my geometry is that "the shortest distance between two points is *not* a straight line"?

How you get to your conclusion is an important part of an argument.

It seems their point was that someone gained access by using a window. I don't think that what appears to be sloppy fact reporting equates to operating on false assumptions. An armed individual did gain access to an otherwise secured area via a broken window.

fuhfuhfuh:Giltric: neversubmit: fuhfuhfuh: Both sides of the current gun debate seem to enjoy resorting to appeals to emotion, slippery slopes and outright fabrications to try to defend their positions. Doesn't make either side right, or make either side look like they are anything but knee-jerk reactionaries.

Which side has a body count?

The side with all the gun free zones that people keep getting murdered in because they are not allowed to defend themselves with equal force.

Thank you both for proving my point so well.

I know, it's wierd....after months of providing facts and sources related to firearms ownership, rights and violence and the gun control crowd sticking their fingers in their ears going LA LA LA LA LA the whole time people only start taking it seriously when I have some fun.

It's like people have a predetermined viewpoint and will only accept things that doesn't upset that viewpoint.

Damn, now we don't have the right to bear arms any more. Maybe one day one of the asshole groups that fights against the 2nd amendment will slip up and say something that is factually incorrect so that we can have our 2nd amendment rights again..

The idea that the US Military would enslave us in some socialist dystopia were it not for a bunch of hillbillies with semi automatic rifles is the biggest fantasy you will ever tell yourself. Your Red Dawn wet dreams aside, there is already a massive training and equipment gap between a genuine military unit and the good ole' boys 363rd that meets as Scullie's bar to talk about the good old days when they played jr. varsity football. If that was really the goal of the government, you've already lost.

LordJiro:But making it harder for criminals and psychopaths to buy guns (or making it easier to trace the guns they do get ahold of), if it means slightly inconveniencing hobbyists? THAT'S ANTI AMERICAN YOU COMMIE.

Problem being at not all shooters are hobbyists. Its estimated that up to sixty percent of those who own guns do so because they felt a need for the extra protection.Crooks have got the means to get guns either from theft or straw purchase or import. They are armed and they will continue to be armed. Making these laws more one sided than a UN treaty.

What you do is limit everyone based on the promise of security, and what they see on television is a dozen instances per day where that promise fell through.

Its no mystery why the population goes on a buying binge every time the left starts talking about "reasonable restrictions". What you think isn't a very big deal is an extremely big deal.

For example, in 2010 a 16-year-old attacker killed six people hiding in a locked classroom in Hastings Middle School in Minnesota by shooting and subsequently stepping through a tempered glass window that ran vertically alongside the classroom door.

factoryconnection:Credibility is flexible when you're addressing an echo chamber. I am always thrown when someone, columnists often, begins an address with a big, whopper of a lie or warping of the truth, because if they follow it up with what I had previously thought to be true, I then start questioning what I thought about it. As in, these assholes ruin otherwise perfectly-good facts by using them to support a fallacious claim.

Now, when I point that out, people in the target audience of the writer squeal because I'm stuck on "small details" and whatnot. It is somewhat scary at times... and no, I don't just see this among republicans. I do see it a lot among republicans, though.

There're none who need convincing in the echo chamber, consider the possibility that you may be the the target.

Deucednuisance:royone: For those who want to read the NRA report for yourselves, it's here:http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/670907-133630146-nra-s-nation al -school-shield-report.html#document/p1/a97899

The example cited is on page number 48 (69 of the document, but the page number at the bottom of the page is 48). It is used to bolster the argument that windows should be secured.

Those bastards are trying to lie us into secure windows in our schools!

So, as long as I can bisect an angle, it's OK if one of the Givens of my geometry is that "the shortest distance between two points is *not* a straight line"?

How you get to your conclusion is an important part of an argument.

I think we can concede that a locking door is not particularly effective if a window is installed right next to it. People are really fixating on a minor point that is really not that controversial. The NRA should still feel stupid for not checking their facts, though.

Oh, sorry. I thought you said "gun control" advocates and were referring to the shrill cries of blood in the streets from these deadly assault weapons when the FBI tells use their illegal use is at an all time low.

Mrtraveler01:maxx2112: FTFA: For example, in 2010 a 16-year-old attacker killed six people hiding in a locked classroom in Hastings Middle School in Minnesota by shooting and subsequently stepping through a tempered glass window that ran vertically alongside the classroom door. Horrifying-except it never happened.

And later in TFA: It's possible that the episode in question may have been a mix-up; its footnote cites a news story covering both the incident at Hastings Middle School and the massacre at Red Lake Senior High School five years prior, in which a teen assailant killed seven and injured five before committing suicide. But whatever the case, the bad info shows that the NRA is unreliable when it comes to assessing mass gun violence.

It never happened, except that it did happen, just somewhere else, and with more dead and injured. By conflating two actual events, the NRA is engaging in fear and fantasy, the 2nd amendment is automatically expunged, and everyone at the NRA has to send an apology letter to James Brady.

I guess it would be nice if the NRA did its own homework before they made this report.

But I guess that's just me.

You're absolutely right. This is the kind of error that should have been caught in proof reading and fact checking. However, it's not the overt act of lying and fabrication of facts that some in this thread are making it out to be.

Wrong, yes. Deceitful, probably not.

/ one supposes, then, that technically incorrect is the worst kind of incorrect

Bravo Two:Antimatter: Further discussion on this topic is pointless: the guns rights folks won. The occasional violent robbery, massacre, rape or murder is just the price we are going to have to accept.

Guns cause rape and violent robbery? Wat?

They don't "cause" rape and robbery, but as Samuel Colt implied, they make them a hell of a lot easier. Also true of assault, terrorism, accidental homicide, suicide and intentional murder.

Do you disagree?

// and no, screwdrivers, crossbows and trebuchets do not have "the same" problems - non-projectile, and not as accurate/prevalent/concealable

trappedspirit:Mrtraveler01: It's easy to mistake "broke through a school window and killed 6 students" from "was subdued by school authorities before any shots broke out"

For Godsakes, the truth backs up the point they were trying to make and they still had to resort to lying?!?!

This. Could be a mistake. But here's the official link to the document. Page 48. Or search for 'Hastings'

http://www.nraschoolshield.com/NSS_Final_FULL.pdf

I don't see how it could be anything but a mistake. Unless the NRA is really the National Secure Window Association who will say anything to sell those overpriced windows that don't really make anyone safer and actually kill our kids.

iheartscotch:If you guys what sensible, intelligent, bi- paritizan reforms on guns; the president should issue a pledge to not take away guns from law-abiding citizens and have any democrat that wants append their name to the pledge.

/ he gave us a pledge? Unheard of! Absurd!

Yeah, that would work, totally. Like his pledge in 2008 to not accept additional funds for his Presidential campaign...which he wisely reneged on? Republicans and the NRA would NEVER bring that up....

It is a bit much the hand wringing over the error, but if ANYONE wants to be taken seriously, fact check and put together a good document. Otherwise, why are you there at all - to bamboozle the ignorant and present a false image? And the 20 armed guards for the presenter who wasn't frightened at all?

Quite simply, the NRA is a front group for folks that are frightened ALL THE TIME; I think a lot of folks who buy guns are simply frightened (wow - shocker) and for some it's a legitimate concern but for most others, it's a sign of stress and emotional fragility.

Fair enough, but MoJo was nice enough to link to their source. What was I saying about an echo chamber?

Using Mother Jones as a source is like using Fox & Friends as a source. They may be right about any given fact. They may link to factual support. But they're still an echo chamber. So it isn't really a good thread to support your opposition to echo chambers.

It is interesting how quick and effective the anti-gun folks are at finding errors with NRA statements while being completely incapable of recognizing that lies, cherry-picking statistics, and appeals to emotion are literally the only thing their side does.

Both sides of the current gun debate seem to enjoy resorting to appeals to emotion, slippery slopes and outright fabrications to try to defend their positions. Doesn't make either side right, or make either side look like they are anything but knee-jerk reactionaries.

factoryconnection:Credibility is flexible when you're addressing an echo chamber. I am always thrown when someone, columnists often, begins an address with a big, whopper of a lie or warping of the truth, because if they follow it up with what I had previously thought to be true, I then start questioning what I thought about it. As in, these assholes ruin otherwise perfectly-good facts by using them to support a fallacious claim.

Now, when I point that out, people in the target audience of the writer squeal because I'm stuck on "small details" and whatnot. It is somewhat scary at times... and no, I don't just see this among republicans. I do see it a lot among republicans, though.

You know who else talked about big lies being easier to spread than little lies...

Credibility is flexible when you're addressing an echo chamber. I am always thrown when someone, columnists often, begins an address with a big, whopper of a lie or warping of the truth, because if they follow it up with what I had previously thought to be true, I then start questioning what I thought about it. As in, these assholes ruin otherwise perfectly-good facts by using them to support a fallacious claim.

Now, when I point that out, people in the target audience of the writer squeal because I'm stuck on "small details" and whatnot. It is somewhat scary at times... and no, I don't just see this among republicans. I do see it a lot among republicans, though.